When I addressed the jurors at my trial by the United Methodist Church on Nov. 19, 2013, they had already found me guilty of violating church law by performing a same-sex wedding for my son Tim in 2007. The hearing that day was for the purpose of finding an appropriate penalty. In a moment of total honesty, I shared with the jury that I would continue to be an advocate of LGBT persons, and asked the Church to stop treating them as “second-class Christians.”

Here’s why: The United Methodist Church does welcome gay and lesbians to be a part of the church; they can become full members, they can serve on church councils and become involved in all aspects of a local church’s lay ministry. And that’s great, until we realize that they are not entitled to certain ministries and opportunities that are available for everybody else, such as having their marriage blessed by the church. “Practicing” gay and lesbian believers are also prohibited from becoming licensed and ordained pastors.

To refuse rights and ministry to a certain group of people that are otherwise offered to everybody else is obviously discriminatory.

But there is more: even worse than being refused certain blessings and opportunities, gay and lesbian believers who are in a same-gender relationship are also relegated to a special status of “sinner.” Para. 161 (F) of the Book of Discipline states: “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”

To homosexual believers, this feels as though their acts of love are regarded as sinful. Since “practice” is not defined by the church, we must assume that it includes sexual, romantic, and ceremonial aspects of a homosexual relationship. If what you understand to be an act of love is declared a sin by the Church, what does that do to your soul, your understanding of morality and salvation? It’s a terrible message that puts our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in inner conflict and turmoil.

Wikipedia defines hate speech as “speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group.” It may not be intentional, but calling homosexual practice “incompatible with Christian teachings” is a form of hate speech. What’s really incompatible with Christian teachings is discrimination and hate speech, and I will continue to speak out about it despite the disciplinary actions that have been taken against me.

This is neither hate speech or discrimination. The church has its bylaws and creeds. If you want to belong, submit to their teaching, if not, hit the road Jack.

Why can't the homosexual community accept:

1. The practice of homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible and most Bible-believing churches

2. Most people will never accept homosexuality as normal. We may tolerate it but acceptance is a different story.

Another issue is the liberal media reports from a skewed point-of-view. The headline from another perspective would be the Methodist church continues to stand strong as a bulwark of truth against the onslaught of truth is whatever we feel.

This article quotes Wikipedia as it defines hate speech as “speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group.”

It seems to me that this articled disparages Christians who will not condone homosexual practice. Is this not true? In doing so you are, by your own argument, guilty of hate speech against those of us who believe that sexual acts with people of the same sex are sinful.

Because of this comment, you may say that I am also guilty of hate speech. My intention is not to "spread hate", it is simply to state my disagreement, just as you have stated your disagreement with some of us Christians. I simply hope that you can come to terms with the idea that people will disagree with each other, and that this doesn't justify pulling the "hate speech" card on someone whom you don't see eye-to-eye with.

You are better off being out of the church, Frank, whatever brand it is. They breed brainwashed zombies who are manipulated and used and who have to part with money at every service, or automatic withdrawals from their bank account. God created and facilitates births, its called nature, therefore God is responsible for homosexuals. If they are not acceptable by God then they would not have been created in the first place. Churches that object are not following or accepting God into their lives.. People with half a brain avoid churches and religions and opt for spirituality, personal development, caring and sharing. If you are a church-going Christian then stop and think, grow-up, do some research, checkout various other options and read philosophical and awareness-building books; not various editions of the bible. Remember that the bible has been re-written several times by individual 'disciples', nutters and churches.

I am sure the Reverend took some vows to uphold the Methodist standards when he was ordained and if he refuses to uphold them he is in violation. As for his twisting of words, we should all remember the church is the people of God and we are commanded to live according to the standards in the bible. And also remember when God judges at the end their will be some discriminating decisions being made based on God's standards.

"To refuse rights and ministry to a certain group of people that are
otherwise offered to everybody else is obviously discriminatory." But of course the church is not doing that. It will happily perform a marriage for any of its members who want to enter into marriage, subject of course to rules that define marriage. (It won't perform a wedding for someone who is currently married to someone else for example.) What is being demanded is that the church invent a sacrament for those who do not wish to be married and who wish to be treated as married anyway. You might as well have a bigamist come into the church saying, well, if I love this woman, what difference does it make if I'm not divorced from the one I no longer love? Isn't marriage just for those who love each other?

And of course the answer to that question is, no, that's not just what marriage is for. It perverts the concept of marriage to argue otherwise.

This story just illustrates how the whole gay rights thing is really just a theological argument. Arguing over Bible passages and what they mean has no place in American politics, yet Christians think that's what should drive the policy conversation. Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than "The Bible says so", because the Bible says a lot of things that aren't codified into our laws, or were rightly expunged years ago because they were outright wrong.

The Methodist Church should be able to determine what they will allow concerning any members status. If you do not agree with their decision, find you another church. This is one thing that is wrong with this Country. Allowing minorities to overrule majorities. PERIOD.

The Bible is chocka-block full of "morals", laws and rules that would land you in prison today if you committed these God ordained activities. Stone your disobedient children? Sell your daughter into slavery? Kill people for working on the sabbath? You now the drill - all kinds of crazy stuff the Christians rightfully ignore, while fixating on Gay sex. We have evolved morally, ethically and justly since The Bible was written - and the teachings of Christ were a major motivating factor in this growth. But now his followers, happily ignoring the vast majority of Biblical laws while insisting that The Bible is perfect and unchanging - these self-same ignorers of Biblical Law try to tell others how to lead their lives. One thing Jesus hated above all is/was hypocrites, which doesn't bode well for modern Christians.

LGBT'ers and their political enablers are the greatest threat to free speech and religious freedom in modern society. They have an uninterrupted record of fascism in trying to silence any opposition to their extremism, and only know to scream "bigot" when somebody actually defies PC and challenges them to support their position. And it is chilling to have a publication of the free press call for hate crimes. This is a classic tactic of the totalitarian Left, like Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot. May Time go the way of Newsweek.

First, as a public school teacher, don't ever, ever, ever use Wikipedia as a 'scholarly source.' We occasionally suspend students who use Wikipedia, so I would not recommend that Rev. Schaefer utilize it.

Second, as a Reverend, it is Rev. Schaefer's duty to spread the Word of Christ and of the Church. By coming out in favor of LGBTQ behavior, the Reverend is violating his vows (particularly that of 'obedience'), and brings shame upon himself by contradicting Church doctrine and teaching. He should therefore be removed from his post, or he should resign.

Third, the Reverend seems to forget that there is such a thing as moral v. immoral love. Moral love is that which is holy and decent in the eyes of the Church. Immoral love (i.e. lust, homosexual love) is damnable and worthy of condemnation. If the Reverend goes on supporting immoral love, he will surely be questioned when he arrives before God, who condemns such sins.

If somebody says "I think Christianity and the Bible are all nonsense and I don't believe any of it", that is an honest and legitimate position. I was exactly that way the majority of my life. But it is evil to deliberately distort, lie, and deceive as to what the Bible actually teaches, which is what militant LGBT'ers and the Frank Schaefer's of the world are doing. And the Bible is replete with warnings about these people.

You said "To refuse rights and ministry to a certain group of people that are otherwise offered to everybody else is obviously discriminatory." You use the word as if it were dirty. As you know, the Bible in many places commands Christians to be a discriminating, holy people. Where there is no spiritually informed discrimination, there is only equivocation. I doubt that your denomination offers the ministry to inveterate liars, thieves or murderers who lead lying, thieving murderous lives while insisting that these are only "alternative lifestyles" yet just as valid as the lifestyle which the Bible, you know, actually calls on us to lead.

In the very next paragraph, you go on to say "But there is more: even worse than being refused certain blessings and opportunities, gay and lesbian believers who are in a same-gender relationship are also relegated to a special status of “sinner.” Mr. Schaefer, If you will reference your Bible, in more places than there is space to note here, you will perhaps be reminded that God relegated the entirety of humanity, including you, me, your son etc. to the special status of "sinner" long before the Methodist Church existed. This has long been a basic Christian teaching, upon which the Gospel largely rests.

In your fifth paragraph, you pose the question "If what you understand to be an act of love is declared a sin by the Church, what does that do to your soul, your understanding of morality and salvation? Please consider that people have done all sorts of things which they consider to be acts of love. For example, Brian Cutteridge, of Canada, and some like him fight for their right to "loving, emotionally fulfilling and consensual" bestiality. The North American Man/Boy Love Association promotes the legalization of "consensual" pederasty. Please understand, it is not the "Church" that declares homosexual acts of love to be a sin, but the Bible. It is also the Bible which commands us to love all people. I can't imagine how miserable I would be if I burned with lust toward other men. However, to answer the question, I imagine it would burden and sadden my soul, as indeed my natural inclinations to lie, my feelings of pride, and my sexual attraction to all sorts of women other than (but, praise God, including) my wife burdens my soul. In that case, I would have to content myself with loving these, or this man, sacrificially as Christ loves the Church. I would hope that there were many, many men, women and children who I would deeply, sacrificially love. Moreover I derive my understanding of morality from what the Bible says is sinful and what the Bible says is holy. I adjust what I view as moral to what the Bible says is moral. I derive my understanding of salvation from what the Bible says about salvation. I do not derive my understandings of morality from society, nor from popular culture, nor from my natural inclinations.

You continue in paragraph five "It’s a terrible message that puts our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in inner conflict and turmoil." I agree that it's terrible that the indulgence of many of our natural inclinations would not commend us to God, and especially so when society tells us that these things are okay. But the wonderful message is that this state of turmoil and conflict is only temporary, and that the sacrifice Christ made restores friendship with God despite our natural, fallen inclinations, to us who can accept that wonderful, Good News, and the One who brings it, Jesus.

The Wikipedia definition is revealing, and its weakness rests upon the word "perceived", since in practice it amounts to any speech that hurts another's feelings, or disputes another's conception of truth, or challenges or disproves another's position, all three of which the Biblical teaching on homosexual practice does. Please consider that the teachings of the Bible usually have been considered to be challenging, and convicting, and the source of morality and truth. The idea that the Bible is for condoning or approving personal or societal behavior is contrary to its genius.

I don't hate your son. I don't believe he chose to be sexually attracted to men. I think he is a fallen sinner, just like I am. And I believe that the Bible has a lot to say about how we should handle our natural, unfortunately fallen inclinations.

For example, 1-Corinthians 5 describes two people claiming to be Christian while living in an incestuous relationship and PROUD of their lifestyle. This chapter is the template for dealing with these kinds of problems. It says to JUDGE them, EXPEL them and thereafter have nothing to do with them.

I'm sure the LGBTQIP of 1st century picketed Christians and shouted "discrimination", "hate speech", "bigotry" and all the other ear trash of this age because there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc 1:9). The perverts of the world are free to live as they please outside the church, but not inside. Jesus said that He would build His church and the gates will not prevail against it (Matt 16:17-19). God has already stated that He will never permit this filthy lifestyle into His kingdom (1-Cor 6:9-11).

Anybody proposing that Paul somehow distorted the message of Jesus is either a theological imbecile or deliberately lying. It does not merit serious consideration.

If you are in a homosexual lifestyle the worst thing you can do is listen to LGBT'ers and the Time magazine's of the world. They laugh at Sodom & Gomorrah while at the same time duplicating it. Just come to Christ. He will wash you clean, like He has done for all who seek Him.

@JamOD You comment is interesting. What parts of the Holy Bible are you following? The Old Testament or the New Testament? Christ was a Jew that day he died; and so were his parents and his followers. Christ was talking follow the Torah. Christ also, never spoke of homosexuality. He did say "love you neighbor as you love yourself". If you are wanting us to follow the Holy Bible, you should know it was written by men who used letters written from men to men. The letters were written on what former men heard Christ say and what they observed Christ do. There are also letter based on a man's interpretation of what they thought those letter meant. Also you should know that the first Church didn't create until approximately 100 years after Christ's death. In top of that, the first Church was the Roman Catholic Church and the rest were created when men wanted their Churches to follow the Holy Bible differently than the other ones. The Holy Bible understandings and the Churches have changed over the years of science, culture, interpretations of the Bible. Reverend Schaefer is following his God after his study, prayer and love. Don't be judgmental to him. He can prove he is Christian and he's never made a judgmental comment about you and your belief.

@Ahdove Really?? "we are commanded to live according to the standards in the bible." So you keep slaves, kill people who work on Sunday, don't eat shellfish, murder your disobedient children etc...??? You people claim to read the Bible, but somehow manage to miss all the terrible, un-Godly parts that probably made sense 5,000 years ago, but not today . Why is that? Is it that you really don't read the Bible, or that you can't fathom that a loving, caring God commands you to be such an awful person in his name?

@trytoseeitmyway The UMC is well within its rights to refuse to officiate at gay marriages. The UMC is a schizophrenic organization - with churches ranging from highly liberal to deeply conservative, sometimes in the same town. So you can't please everybody, and liberal people with strongly held personal beliefs about gay rights should probably look elsewhere for a church home.

Maybe in the old days, like 2000 years ago. Today, we know that roughly 1% of nearly all God-created species exhibit sexual deviance. And in a smaller percentage, we see indeterminate sexual organs, including human beings. This isn't something to "condemn" or "condone" -- it's just the natural course of creation. It's time to recognize that Paul didn't have an understanding of genetics, human sexuality, and natural species deviation.

There are 1 billion people going to bed hungry each night. There are 22,000 people a DAY dying of starvation. There are 40 million slaves still in bondage on this planet, many of them sexual slaves. There are REAL human problems of suffering and injustice and hatred and indifference that we should be focused on. This religious focus on deviant sexuality in 1% of our population is such a waste of time, energy, and resources.

Dear Mary, the one fact that religious people are missing is that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice". In virtually all animal species, we see around 1% sexual deviance. I don't know why this is true, but that's just the hand nature has dealt. You can accept that, or continue to think that 1% of humanity has <<chosen>> to be attracted to same-sex relationship. Decades ago, doctors recognized that sexual orientation was generally in-born, and not chosen. This is why homosexuality was removed decades ago from the DSM as a mental disorder.

I encourage you to study the science of sexual deviation in the animal kingdom, and then ask "why did God create this small deviancy?" We need compassion on deviants, not hatred. It's not their fault for being born this way. To call them "perverts" and "filthy" is the mark of a social bully.

There are 1 billion people going to bed hungry each night. There are
22,000 people a DAY dying of starvation. There are 40 million slaves
still in bondage on this planet, many of them sexual slaves. There are
REAL human problems of suffering and injustice and hatred and
indifference that we should be focused on. This religious focus on
deviant sexuality in 1% of our population is such a waste of time,
energy, and resources.

Agreed. Just come to Christ. Be wary of Paul, who told slaves to "obey and honor" their masters. Paul is not the last word of universal moralism. Slavery was NEVER right, even though it may have been "legal". Slaveowners were still using Paul to justify their crimes as recent as the last century. Don't make their same mistake. Stop condemning people for their inborn sexual orientations. Be like Jesus, not Paul.

@CChristian @JamOD Guess you never read the part in Revelation where Jesus spoke repeatedly about repenting lest He cast people out or later in Revelation where He condemns people to hell. I guess a Jesus who judges sin according to absolute truth is not compatible with the modern liberal view of creating a god in our image who saves everyone except maybe Hitler and a few other bad people

Why all of it of course! From the beginning to the end it is consistent and without error. "a man should leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife..." this is found in both the Old and New Testament. Guess who said it?

You are right that Schaefer is following his God. I just think it isn't the same God who speaks to us in the Old and New Testaments. "love your neighbor" while they are falling away in sin is not love.

Have you ever thought about the unconditional love of Jesus? Have you ever stopped to consider that some religious people think it is more important to be RIGHT than to be LOVING? Have you considered that Jesus reserved his fiercest opposition to the religious leaders of his day?

I'll tell you my experience. The people doing the work of Spirit today have embraced ALL people as God's children unconditionally, not predicated on their belief system, their creed, or their religious ideas. These same people are never interested in some future salvation, or pounding on some ancient words put together by panels of religious tribesmen. They seek to be loving, not philosophically right.

Young people are leaving the institutions of religion in accelerating numbers because of the hypocrisy and intolerance of those who claim unconditional love, who shape their world-view in simplistic ideas of sinners and saved. Young people are seeing the world not as "us and them" but just as "us" -- and looking to be Christ's hands and feet among the hurting, the starving, the marginalized -- lifting people one by one into a more Jesus-like life of compassion, empathy, and grace. They are not doing this by preaching religion, but by doing love.

They're not about some pie-in-the-sky salvation. They're not about who's in and who's out. They're not interested in religious tribalism. You know something that Paul probably got right? In a moment of exceptional clarity, he recognized that ALL our religion, all our religious knowledge, all our prophecies and strange religious babblings -- will fail and pass away. But only one reality will not pass away, and that is love.

Whatever culturally-induced religious falsehoods you continue to believe about in-born sexual preferencey, know this: if you do not love everyone unconditionally, regardless of their perceived "sin" (oh, the log in our eyes), then kiss Jesus goodbye, because he never knew you.

@do2 @MindyCoulson Actually, yes. If you aren't aware of these awful, repugnant things in The Bible (and many, many more) you are just representative of the vast majority of Christians whose eyes gloss over when they read the really repugnant, revolting parts of the bible - because these terrible things don't fit their world view of The Bible. There is no moral excuse for many things in The Bible - and some that aren't. Why doesn't The Bible condemn sex with children, for instance? They go out of their way to condemn sex acts between consenting adults, but raping children? Strangely silent - it could have at least deserved a mention.

@CarlLegg@mary.waterton What would cause you to assume that everything in creation comes directly from the hand of God? We swim in an atmosphere of brokenness caused by human sin. Furthermore, there is no orthodox witch hunt against gays. It is the LGBT... community that refuses to exit the stage and allow denominations to get back to the work that you rightly focus upon. In the UMC, they are the ones who disrupt meetings, distracting the church from its work of feeding the hungry and releasing the captives. I know no one who relishes this fight with those who seek to change the historic church's teaching.

@CarlLegg@do2 Do you see a problem with your thinking in that Christ chose Paul like he chose and spoke to no other man? Gee, I guess Christ (who is also God) must have made a mistake then! So part of the Bible is correct and part incorrect? Again, this does not merit serious consideration.

And likewise you are deliberately distorting what Paul said about slavery. This is a common tactic with LGBT propagandists who do not care about the truth.

Read the bible, but also take time to understand nature. A small percentage of sexual deviancy is normal throughout nature. This isn't "sin" -- this is just the way nature works. It's not a good thing, or a bad thing, it's just nature at work. For reasons we don't entirely understand, around 1% of human beings are born with an innate desire for same-sex relationships. You can thump a bible at them, yell at them, love them, condemn them as sinners, befriend them, belittle them, burn them at the stake, or banish them from your religious tribe..... but it will not change nature.

And an even smaller percentage of human beings are born with indeterminate sexual organs. This isn't sin. This isn't a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It's just normal biological deviancy. You can accept it, or condemn it. That's your choice, but in condemning, you are exhibiting tribal superstition, not Christ's love.

Educate yourself on normal biological deviation in nature. And don't let the bible tell you that something is sinful when it is just nature doing its thing.

@Amerika_Lost Sorry, I gave up on carrot and stick religion long ago. I don't care about some "reward in heaven". I don't care about some future pie in the sky. The concept of "personal salvation" now seems selfish and self-absorbed. I am only interested in learning how to love people, now, here, today. I'm interested in learning how to love my enemy, today -- not tomorrow. I'm not very good at love, but I'm learning.

If threats of damnation help you to love God and love people, I'm not going to argue. If your "personal salvation" and fear of damnation is more important than loving god and loving people, then bless you. Have a nice life.

@CarlLegg Guess you never read the part in Revelation where Jesus spoke repeatedly about repenting lest He cast people out or later in Revelation where He condemns people to hell. I guess a Jesus who judges sin according to absolute truth is not compatible with the modern liberal view of creating a god in our image who saves everyone except maybe Hitler and a few other bad people.

@do2 @MindyCoulson 2 KINGS 6:29 says: "So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said
unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she
hath hid her son.

Leviticus 25:44 says: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

In biblical times, your travel plans could involve mass murder. According
to Deuteronomy 13:12-15, if you find that the people in the city you're
visiting worship another god, you have to kill them all.

Leviticus 21 has a lot to say about who is and who isn't allowed to be a
priest. We all know that anyone who's had sex can't be a Catholic
priest. But did you also know that the bible bans anyone with a
deformity? You know who else is shut out? Anyone who has a flat nose.

Leviticus 20:10 says: "If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die."

So,
just to be clear, if one spouse cheats, both spouses have to die.
That's certainly adding insult to injury. We bet that people in biblical
times were really great at hiding their extramarital affairs.

Leviticus 20:9 says: "Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense."

Leviticus 24:16 says: "Whoever utters the name of the Lord must be put
to death. The whole community must stone him, whether alien or native.
If he utters the name, he must be put to death."

We knew that saying the Lord's name in vain was a no-no. We didn't know that you're not supposed to say it at all.

Leviticus 19:19 says: "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens
of virginity be not found for the damsel, then they shall bring out the
damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall
stone her with stones that she die.

"1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states: "Let your women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Exodus 31:14-15 states: "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is
holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death:
for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from
among his people."

Mark 10:11-12 states: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth
another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
away from her husband committeth adultery." That's just sratching the surface...shall I go on to the real goodies, like cheering the murder of infants by bashing their skulls against the rocks? Abortion = bad! Killing infants who are post-born = God Cheers it on!! Woot!!

@do2@MindyCoulson The Bible specifically and in great detail condemns many things - never sex with children. Does that mean sex with children is OK? Obviously not. Does that mean that God just "forgot" to mention that raping children is wrong? If that's the case, that God "forgot", then The Bible is hardly perfect then, is it? Or maybe people back then didn't rape children, so it didn't even occur to God that such a thing is possible? Not so much - sex acts with children are reported historically and depicted in artworks from that time.

So what's up with that? Well, I'll tell you - we have advanced in our treatment of women, children and minorities - we don't keep slaves, we don't kill people for petty infractions, and we don't (as a course of reason and law) uphold about 99% of Biblical "Laws".

But since Christians are so obsessed with gay sex, despite all these moral and ethical advances, Christians think we are more "immoral" than the people of the Bible times. Silly Christians - Jesus is weeping at your ignorance.

@CarlLegg@phil52001 I find it interesting that you keep referring to the animal kingdom and its "deviant" actions. In Genesis we are told that Adam and Eve sinned and "all" creation was broken at that moment because the perfection God had created been violated. Witness God cursing the ground, causing women to have pain in child birth, man earning his living by the sweat of his brow and other things I won't elaborate here. Seems to me you are flirting with the LGBTQIP community's thoughts about the world as it is without truly acknowledging that the God of Love that you speak of is also the God of Judgment at the last day. Heaven forbid we allow someone to stray from the embrace of a loving God and not try to persuade he or she to turn and truly behold and undrestand the love that created them!

"What would cause you to assume that everything in creation comes directly from the hand of God?"

We know that most species (not all) exhibit a small percentage of sexual deviance, not just humans. If you're saying that all those other animal species with known deviant populations (crabs, worms, chimps, birds, etc...) are a result of "sin", then I leave you to wander down that strange theological road. I will not walk down that road with you.

As for LGBT upsetting your institutional meetings, why don't you give them a formal voice at the table, or some other way of showing real unconditional love to them, just like Jesus. It doesn't mean you have to give them membership into the tribe, but at least be like Jesus in your response to them, even if they're not being Christ-like to you.

And Paul's response was to continue a status quo which was (and is) morally reprehensible. The only "lie" about the word of God is that God condones a "status quo" of slavery. If you had studied even basic U.S. and British history, you would know that slave-owners also used Paul's words to justify their ownership of slaves, just as certain religions today use Paul's words to justify condemning the 1% of humanity born with deviant sexual orientation.

Believe what you wish. I believe you are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality, and not in the spirit of Christ in attitude towards those rare persons born with a same-sex attraction. Paul's response to slaves and slavery was dead wrong, and he had no understanding of normal sexual deviation among species. Today we know that roughly 1% of most species exhibit sexual deviancy. This isn't a "moral" issue, it's just a basic fact of nature. Get over it, and start focusing on the TRUE evils of this world:

The 1 billion people going to bed hungry each night. The
22,000 people a DAY dying of starvation. The 40 million slaves
still in bondage on this planet, many of them sexual slaves. This crazy religious focus on
normal 1% deviant sexuality is such a waste of time,
energy, and resources.

@do2@CarlLegg Paul claims Christ chose him. Does that make it a fact? Is there any proof that what Paul claimed on the road to Damascus happened? Many people claim Christ appeared to them and told them things. But that doesn't make it a fact. Even Peter and others would not accept Paul because they did not trust him. And Many say Paul was the leader of the early church.

@CarlLegg@do2 I am familiar with these LGBT talking points and it is a gross distortion to say Paul was condoning slavery. Slavery was the status quo of Paul's time and his point was that Christ transcends all divisions, and slaves should serve their masters like we serve God. What does Col 4:1 say Carl? That masters should be just and fair to their slaves. Doesn't sound like a cruel slaveholder does it? And Christ choose Judas knowing full well he would betray Him, which you would know if you were not just mouthing words provided by your handlers.

Let's try it again. Christ chose Paul. Christ is God. God does not make mistakes. LGBT'ers do not get to choose which parts of the Bible are true and, you know, clear up God's thinking on these issues.

I hope this helps with your confusion. And, in all seriousness, for your sake, do not deliberately lie about the word of God.

@formerlyjames@do2 The doctrine of the trinity is fundamental to Christianity. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all the same thing. God became flesh when Jesus was born. This is why it is ludicrous to suggest Paul was somehow not in accord with Christ. Further, the entire Bible stands or falls as a whole. It is the divinely inspired word of God, and God does not make mistakes nor does He ever change.

But please don't take my word for anything. Look into it yourself but with an open mind and heart.

I know the part about Christ choosing Peter, but where do you get the notion of god choosing Paul? I don't know that even Paul said that, but even if he did countless lunatics even now claim to speak to god. Peter was a contemporary of Christ, Paul wasn't even around then.